New Nukes: Britain’s Next-Gen Nuclear Missile Submarines

Aug 21/14: Industrial. BAE is starting to demolish certain disused buildings at their Barrow-in-Furness site, as the 1st major stage in a large-scale 8-year industrial program. An old foundry and boiler shop are the first to go, and construction will eventually include:

Refurbishment of the site’s main fabrication facility, together with its existing plant and machinery;

An extension to the Devonshire Dock Hall construction facility to include a new state-of-the-art manufacturing and installation facility;

An intent to build a 28,000 m2 off-site facility to store submarine parts and materials within the local area, for easier and faster access.

“We are committed to working towards a safer world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons… However, the continuing risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the certainty that a number of other countries will retain substantial nuclear arsenals, mean that our minimum nuclear deterrent capability, currently represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element of our security.” — UK SDSR, 1998

Britain has a big decision to make: do they remain a nuclear weapons power, or not? In an age of collapsing public finances and an uncertain long-term economic future, the money needed to design new nuclear missile submarines is a huge cost commitment that could crowd out other needs. Then again, in an age of collapsing non-proliferation frameworks, clear hostility from ideologies that want nuclear weapons, and allies who are less capable and dependable, the downside of renouncing nuclear weapons is a huge risk commitment. Pick one, or the other. There is no free lunch.

This article covers that momentous decision for Britain, and the contracts and debates associated with it.

Advertisement

Contracts & Key Events

HMS Vanguard(click to view full)

Britain’s government took the first big steps in 2006-2007, a joint US-UK “Common Missile Compatment” (CMC) project was launched in 2008, and initial gate approval for Britain’s “Successor” project followed in 2011. Other contracts have followed, covering design, infrastructure, and even the new kind of nuclear reactor the submarines are expected to use. What hasn’t quite followed yet, is full approval to launch the build program.

Note that the CMC sub-program, which is financed by the USA and UK, is covered in its own article.

FY 2014

RUSI

Aug 21/14: Industrial. BAE is starting to demolish certain disused buildings at their Barrow-in-Furness site, as the 1st major stage in a large-scale 8-year industrial program. An old foundry and boiler shop are the first to go, and construction will eventually include:

Refurbishment of the site’s main fabrication facility, together with its existing plant and machinery;

An extension to the Devonshire Dock Hall construction facility to include a new state-of-the-art manufacturing and installation facility;

An intent to build a 28,000 m2 off-site facility to store submarine parts and materials within the local area, for easier and faster access.

Feb 2/14: Politics. The buzz in Westminister is that Labour Party MPs are beginning to back away from their leader Ed Miliband’s support for the Successor Class. The erosion is serious enough that Conservative Party Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has told his junior ministers to lobby the shipbuilding unions and have them firm up Labour Party support.

The Liberal Democrats are openly against the project, but the Labour Party doesn’t want to head into the next election on a pledge to abandon Britain’s deterrent. Neither does the Conservative Party, despite reservations in some of its own quarters. Labour’s Miliband voiced his public displeasure over the perceived interference in his party’s affairs, but he has no way to block discussions with the shipbuilding unions. Sources: The Guardian, “Lobby ship unions over Trident, Philip Hammond tells ministers”.

Jan 31/14: RUSI Report. RUSI releases a report that looks at how a smaller or less active SSBN force would affect Britain’s deterrent, compared to the current arrangement of Continuous At-Sea Deterrence (CASD) that ensures at least 1 submarine ready at all times. A number of proposals are in play politically:

“At lower readiness, the ‘preserved deterrence’ posture presented in the TAR and the ‘contingency’ posture proposed elsewhere by the Liberal Democrat Party would have no nuclear platforms deployed on a day-to-day basis, and would only have the ability to reconstitute a force over a limited period of time (in the case of ‘preserved deterrence’, a matter of years).19 At medium levels of readiness, the ‘sustained’ or ‘responsive’ postures presented in the TAR would have nuclear-armed submarines patrolling on a day-to-day basis, interrupted by voluntary periods of inactivity of varying length (the former permitting fewer and shorter interruptions than the latter). At higher levels of readiness, the ‘focused’ posture would maintain back-to-back patrols, interrupted only for periods of technical or personnel recuperation.”

RUSI’s conclusion is that the lowest-readiness option, and proposals that would cut the submarine force to just 2 boats, are problematic because of the breadth of gaps and/or lag time they create. Medium levels of readiness, or a fleet of 3 boats, might work, but it means the UK has to change from deterrence as an undefined concept and invisible non-factor in crisis escalation. Instead, the need to activate the deterrent would require a very clear doctrine of deterrence and escalation that would play a significant role in future crises. This state of affairs also adds opportunities for British politicians to bungle things beforehand by ignoring vital signals, or create big problems during a crisis by managing their suddenly-public moves badly. Based on the historical record, RUSI is more complacent about future governments’ handling of such things than they ought to be.

Britain will also have to worry about rushed moves causing a submarine-related accident, and about the morale and readiness rot that afflicts personnel who see themselves as a sideline. RUSI uses the USA’s ICBM missile force as a negative example. Sources: RUSI, “A Disturbance in the Force: Debating Continuous At-Sea Deterrence” (see Additional Readings).

Key report

2013

Long-term nuclear infrastructure deal; Political turbulence in Scotland, Labour Party, and even the Conservative Party; Small long-lead buys begin.

Vanguard Class SSBN(click to view full)

Dec 16/13: Procurement begins. GBP 79 million is a drop in the ocean for this program, but the UK MoD has begun the process of ordering known early-build items items like structural fittings, electrical equipment, castings and forgings, etc. The GBP 79 million in contracts are actually a set of 2, both awarded to BAE Systems Maritime – Submarines.

The Ministry of Defence also releases the 1st conceptual graphics of the Successor Class design, based on work done to date. At this stage, they don’t show much and shouldn’t be expected to. Sources: UK MoD, “News story: New investment in Successor submarines” | Royal Navy, “£79m investment in next generation nuclear submarines” | BAE, “First Successor procurement contracts awarded”.

Dec 15/13: Doubts. Former defense minister James Arbuthnot [Cons. – North East Hampshire], who chairs Parliament’s Defence Select Committee, tells the Guardian that he’s concerned about the UK armed forces, and is less sure that maintaining Britain’s nuclear deterrent is a good idea. He isn’t suddenly becoming a pacifist. Rather:

“Nuclear deterrence is essentially aimed at states, because it doesn’t work against terrorists. And you can only aim a nuclear weapon at a rational regime, and at rational states that are not already deterred by the US nuclear deterrent. So there is actually only a small set of targets.

“With the defence budget shrinking, you have to wonder whether [replacing Trident] is an appropriate use of very scarce defence sources. You have to wonder whether nuclear deterrence is still as effective a concept as it used to be in the cold war…. [If Russia wanted to attack, they] would organise for a terrorist group to put a nuclear weapon on a container ship and sail it into Tilbury docks, with the signature of Pakistan on the nuclear device. And what would the UK do? Launch a missile at Islamabad? We could not be sure against what we are retaliating. Nuclear deterrence does not provide the certainty that it seemed to in the past. It’s not an insurance policy, it is a potential booby trap.”

On the other hand, can Britain assume that the US nuclear deterrent will remain reliable over the next 50 years? The last half decade has greatly frayed their relationship, and the USA faces significant financial challenges of its own. Arbuthnot says he would still vote in favor of renewing Trident, but the extent and content of his reservations suggest that a “Syria moment” over nuclear weapons remains a possibility in Parliament. Sources: The Guardian, “Tory ex-defence minister voices doubts over need for Trident replacement”.

Oct 6/13: Not good. The Independent newspaper reports that a 90-minute breakdown of all reactor coolant supply at Devonport dockyard’s Tidal X-Berths in Plymouth, UK nearly led to a major nuclear incident. Based on a heavily redacted report from the Ministry of Defence’s Site Event Report Committee (SERC), both the electrical power for coolant supply to docked nuclear submarines, and the diesel back-up generators, failed at the dockyard on July 29/12. That failure followed a similar failure involving HMS Talent in 2009, and a partial failure involving HMS Trafalgar in 2011.

The newspaper adds that an internal Babcock investigation blamed the incident on the central nuclear switchboard, but added a note of concern about “inability to learn from previous incidents and to implement the recommendations from previous event reports.” This will not help existing uneasiness over the next generation of nuclear submarines, and “Nuclear scare at Navy submarine base after ‘unbelievable’ failures” adds that:

“Its own “stress test” on Devonport safety, launched after the Fukushima disaster, said that in the event of the failure of both power supplies, heat levels in reactors could be controlled by emergency portable water pumps, and added that such a failure had occurred a “number of times” previously.”

Dockyard failure

Oct 3/13: SSE. Babcock announces an unspecified contract from BAE Systems for the System Design phase of a new model of Submerged Signal Ejector (SSE Mk.12). It follows Babcock’s October 2012 system definition contract for the Successor Class’ WHLS (tactical weapons handling and launch) and SSE, thanks to a recent and successful concept review.

An SSE’s self-contained launch tubes sit in the submarine’s external under-casing, and are used for more than just communications beacons. Decoy devices, bathythermograph sensors, flares, and escape signals are all options for the SSE, hence Babcock’s description of it as a “first level system.” Babcock has extensive experience in SSE design and has been heavily involved in designing and making all UK SSE systems. Sources: Babcock International release, Oct 3/13.

March 19/13: Politics. With an SNP-sponsored debate on Trident set to take place in the Scottish Parliament this week, a Labour Party that depends on its advantage in Scotland needs to be clear on its policy. British media are reporting that the Labour Party is looking to backtrack slightly, and propose replacing the 4 Vanguard Class submarines with just 3 successors. Labour Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy continues to support the idea of a Trident replacement, saying that:

“North Korea is trying to develop nuclear weapons, as is Iran. If they do, then Saudi Arabia and Turkey may do the same. The UK shouldn’t just give up our nuclear deterrent by ourselves…. The precise shape of the future deterrent will be based on capability and cost.”

March 7/13: Scotland. With a 2014 referendum looming that could deprive the UK of its nuclear submarine base in Scotland, Britain’s House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee weighs in. Bottom line? The SNP seems to have taken a leaf from their counterparts in Quebec, Canada, and decided to be extremely vague regarding their plans in a potentially controversial area. After all, 6,700 work at Falsane and Coulport now, which is expected to rise to 8,100 after they house all of Britain’s Astute and Trafalgar Class boats and other facilities. Parliament will be pressing the issue hard and publicly:

“Unfortunately, the Scottish Government has gone on evasive manoeuvres over the issue of what they will really do in the event of Separation. Their response dodges the central question, which is what they really mean by their stated policy of the ‘speediest safe transition’ of Trident from Scotland. As we said in our report, in reality, Trident can be deactivated within a matter of days and the warheads removed from Scotland within twenty four months. In the process, the UK would lose the ability to operate its nuclear deterrent. Alternatively, it would take approximately 25 years for new facilities to be created elsewhere in the UK. We believe the Scottish Government must be honest and open about their intentions. Tomorrow we will be taking evidence from the Convener and Shop Stewards at the Coulport and Faslane. They represent the workers who will bear the brunt of job loss…”

Really? 25 years? If so, the whole issue of the Successor Class could become moot very quickly. Which would be fine with the SNP, who want to eliminate the Trident program if Scotland does vote to stay in the UK. Expect to hear more of this sort of to-and-fro, what with another 5,000 jobs on the line in shipbuilding, 15,000 in the UK government 4 Army infantry battalions, 2 Royal Marine Commando units and 5 squadrons of Tornado and Typhoon fighter aircraft in Scotland. UK HoC | SNP | Aviation Week | The Scotsman.

Feb 13/13: Reactors. The UK MoD signs a 10-year, GBP 800 million (then about $1.2 billion) contract with Rolls Royce, financing the Submarines Enterprise Performance Programme (SEPP) envisioned in the 2010 SDSR. The goal is to consolidate costs under one contract with consistent incentives, and improve operational efficiency in the infrastructure that delivers and supports the UK’s naval nuclear propulsion systems. They’re hoping for a GBP 200 million saving over this 10 years. Time will tell.

SEPP isn’t technically part of any one program. Contracts for products and services to deliver and support the submarine programs themselves will continue in parallel. Royal Navy | Rolls Royce.

Jan 25/13: Electrical. HMS Vengeance’s GBP 350 million Long Overhaul Period and Refuel (LOP(R)) will feature a switch that’s likely to be a precursor for Britain’s next-generation SSBNs. Vengeance is replacing the maintenance-heavy rotating machinery of motor generators (MGs) with fixed solid-state Main Static Converters (MSCs), as a key component of the boat’s electrical system.

The new MSCs are derived from the system developed for Britain’s Astute Class SSNs, but adapted for the higher power requirements of an SSBN. They also had to be smaller, due to space limitations in the Vanguards. Finally, they had to successfully integrate into the Vanguard submarines’ existing electrical, control, and coolant systems. Installations have now begun, and a modified version is almost certain to to be part of Britain’s Successor Class. Its designers are likely to be watching the MSCs’ performance in the Vanguards closely. Babcock, via ASD.

2012

Design contracts; Reactors.

click for video

Dec 18/12: The British Ministry of Defense submits its 2012 report to Parliament [PDF] on the future nuclear deterrent, noting the ramp up in public and private resources via an Integrated Programme Management Team (IPMT). A whole boat System Definition Review is scheduled to take place in 2013. With respect to the big items:

“Of the [GBP] 3Bn we plan to spend in the Assessment Phase, the expenditure to the end of Financial Year 2011/2012 has totalled [GBP] 315M. This is some [GBP] 30M lower than expected at the time of the Initial Gate approval, principally as a result of slower than expected manpower build-up in our Industrial partners… still expects to deliver the Assessment Phase within the approved cost of [GBP] 3Bn… Current forecast costs, including planned SEPP efficiency measures, indicate that we remain within the 2006 White Paper estimates of [GBP] 11-14Bn (at 2006/7 prices) for the Successor platform costs (assuming a four boat fleet).

The 2006 White Paper also recognised that investment of [GBP] 4-6Bn (at 2006/7 prices) would be required for supporting infrastructure and a replacement warhead ([GBP] 2-3 Bn for each element). As set out in the 2011 report, the MOD plans to spend some [GBP] 8M between 2011 and 2013 assessing the requirement for additional infrastructure investment. The 2011 report also noted that a decision on whether to refurbish or replace the existing warhead design could be deferred until the next Parliament, as the current warhead design is now planned to continue in service until the 2030s.”

Oct 29/12: Design contracts. The UK commits GBP 350 million to design their next-generation SSBN submarine, which will incorporate CMC. The work will be divided GPB 315 million to BAE Systems, who already has over 1,000 people working on this program, and a further GBP 38 million to Babcock. This award is part of the GBP 3 billion design phase (vid. May 18/11 entry).

The current Vanguard Class submarines are scheduled for replacement from 2028, and Britain is busy moving its entire submarine force to Falsane in Scotland, which will grow to 8,000 jobs by 2017.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who leads Britain’s Liberal Democrat party, angrily denounced the way the move was presented by the government. The government presented it as another step toward renewing the submarine deterrent, but Clegg sees that as ‘jumping the gun.’ His party has set up a review that’s looking at options like shorter-range cruise missiles launched from the torpedo tubes of existing Astute Class fast attack submarines, or to air-launched nuclear missiles. UK MoD | BAE Systems | UK’s Daily Mail.

The nuclear reactor cores will be used to power the 7th and final SSN Astute Class fast attack submarine, and the 1st of the Royal Navy’s next generation of SSBN nuclear deterrent submarines, currently known as the Successor Class.

Rolls Royce is the sole Technical Authority for the UK Nuclear Steam Raising Plant, whose reactors have powered British nuclear-powered submarines for the past 50 years. The GBP 500 million infrastructure contract aims extend the operating life of the Rayneway plant in Derby, UK, by more than 40 years. Rolls-Royce will continue to maintain and operate its existing reactor core manufacturing facility, while undertaking a parallel phased rebuild and modernization of buildings on site. UK MoD | Rolls Royce | The Telegraph.

May 22/12: Design contracts.The UK MoD issues a series of design phase (vid. May 18/11 entry) contracts for its next-generation “Successor” Class SSBNs, while re-iterating that a decision on the final design and build contracts won’t be made until 2016. The design work has to be done, or it would be impossible to make an informed decision about costs.

Babcock receives a GBP 15 million contract to focus on designing parts of the in-service support program.

Rolls Royce receives over GBP 4 million to integrate a new reactor design into the submarine. The reactors themselves will be separate design/ build contracts.

May 15/12: 5 bn for AWE.The UK MoD announces a multi-billion pound agreement with the AWE Management Limited (AWEML) joint venture, which manages Britain’s Atomic Weapons Establishment. The AWEML joint venture includes Jacobs Engineering, Serco and Lockheed Martin, and they signed the current 25-year management contract in 2000.

Scientists at the AWE’s Berkshire sites are involved from the initial concept and design of British nuclear warheads, through manufacture and support, to their decommissioning and disposal. Under the agreement, the ministry will invest GBP 1 billion a year over the next 5 years in skills and facilities at the company’s Aldermaston and Burghfield sites in Berkshire, where more than 4,500 staff are based. Around 40% cent of this money will be invested in essential capital projects, including production and research facilities. The remainder will be spent on operating and maintaining the AWE.

2010 – 2011

Initial Gate. SDSR.

UK Trident launch(click to view full)

May 19/11: Initial Gate. The British government approves the initial Successor Class assessment phase, known as Initial Gate. This allows a design phase to begin that could be worth up to GBP 3 billion.

The new submarine class will retain the current Trident II D5 missiles, and introduce a PWR3-based passive cooling nuclear reactor design for the Royal Navy. The cost for 4 boats is estimated to be GBP 15-20 billion at 2006/7 prices, but the final decision to build 3 or 4 submarines will be taken in 2016. UK House of Commons, “Statement on the Nuclear Deterrent.” | UK MoD.

Design Phase approved

March 23/11: New reactor? Britain is reportedly shifting toward the passive-cooling PWR3 nuclear reactor design for its future SSBN nuclear missile submarines. The PWR2 design used in its SSBN Vanguard Class, as well as the SSN Trafalgar, and new SSN Astute Class fast attack boats, reportedly shares unwelcome features with the Fukushima reactors, in that they entirely on back-up power supplies to provide emergency cooling in the event of an accident.

In contrast the PWR3, which is widely used in modern US nuclear submarines, uses “passive” cooling. That makes it less reliant on back-up power, and offers additional methods of injecting coolant into a reactor.
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/23/navy-submarines-nuclear-reactors

“Under the 1958 UK-US Agreement for Cooperation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes (the ‘Mutual Defence Agreement’) we have agreed on the future of the Trident D5 delivery system and determined that a replacement warhead is not required until at least the late 2030s. Decisions on replacing the warhead will not therefore be required in this Parliament. This will defer £500 million of spending from the next 10 years. We have also reached agreement with the US over the size of the missile tubes in the new submarines; this has enabled us to reduce the cost of the submarine missile compartment by up to [GBP] 250 million.

As a result of our value for money review, we will reduce the number of operational launch tubes on the submarines from 12 to [8], and the number of warheads from 48 to 40, in line with our commitment vigorously to pursue multilateral global disarmament. This will help reduce costs by [GBP] 750 million over the period of the spending review, and by [GBP] 3.2 billion over the next ten years. ‘Initial Gate’ – a decision to move ahead with early stages of the work involved – will be approved and the next phase of the project will start by the end of this year. ‘Main Gate’ – the decision to start building the submarines – is required around 2016.”

There is tension in the governing coalition between Conservative party members, who want to maintain the deterrent, and the Liberal-Democrat party members, who do not.

“The Department’s timetable for completing the design and build process for the replacement submarines is extremely tight. It has 17 years to do it, even though the Department itself accepts that such a process usually cannot be completed in under 18. The MOD’s track record in delivering major defence projects on time is not exemplary.

The MOD must make absolutely fundamental decisions about the design of the new submarines by September of this year. These include the main design features; whether to develop a new type of nuclear reactor requiring substantial research and development; and, crucially, the design and size of the missile compartment.”

Oct 26/07: Concepts. BAE presents 2 SSBN concept designs at DSEi 2007, labelled Concept 35 and Advanced Hull Form (AHF). Concept 35 is an evolution of the SSBN Vanguard Class and SSN Astute Class. The Advanced Hull Form uses a broad y-shaped stern with twin propulsor shrouds, which reportedly houses much of the boat’s machinery outside of the pressure hull. See Beedall for pictures.

“This element of the Future Submarines IPT will be based on the BAE Systems Submarine Solutions site and will be manned by a collaboration of up to 128 personnel made up from the Ministry of Defence, BAE Systems, Rolls Royce and Babcock Marine. Working with the FSM IPT office in the MoD’s Abbey Wood offices, the team will, over the next two years, develop a concept design for the submarine component of the future deterrent programme.”

March 4/07: Vote. Britain’s Labour government wins a 409 – 161 vote to build a new SSBN successor the Vanguard Class. 95 Labour Party MPs vote “no,” but the motion passes with the support of most Labour Party MPs and Britain’s Conservative Party. Britain’s Liberal Democratic Party, Green Party, and Scottish National Party are all opposed as matters of party policy. BBC | The Guardian | The Telegraph.

Additional Readings

UK SSBNs

DID (March 27/12) – GBP 350M for Final Refit of UK’s Vanguard Nuclear Missile Subs. Final? Other refits may be needed in future, in order to keep the Vanguards in service until the new submarines arrive. These will be the last British nuclear submarines to require a Long Overhaul Period and Refuel (LOP-R) during their service lives. The New PWR2 Mk.2 reactor in refitted Vanguard and current Astute submarines, and the PWR3 reactors in the new submarines, will last for the submarine’s entire lifetime.